Archive for the ‘Facility Tours’ Category

Ice Arena Reflection


After visiting the newly remodeling BGSU Ice Arena, it was clear that the arena is on the uprise once again to being a top-notch facility.  I think that for the new renovations to the multi-purpose room, the locker rooms, and the team meeting room, everything has gone very well.  Compared to how the building used to look and what it looks like now, it is a great place for both the Bowling Green community and the BGSU community.

Looking around the building, it is obvious that the flooring and walls have been redone.  The flooring is now more practical with the inclusion of the rubber flooring that goes all the way around the facility.  The facility used to just have a cement floor that was unable to accommodate skating blades.  The rubber flooring allows skaters to put their skates on in any part of the building and walk to their destination in any part of the building.  The old flooring style only allowed for the skaters to take their skates on and off to walk to the various destinations within the building.  According the textbook, this type of flooring seems to be a relatively good choice for the arena.  The rubber flooring scores high in strength, thermal insulation, moisture protection, and abrasions resistance wearability.  Scoring high in those categories seems to very important for an ice arena considering there are sharp blades constantly wearing down on the floors, the area is always cold, and the blades will almost always be wet due to melted ice bits on the skates.

The walls of the facility have not necessarily been remodeled in the sense of material remodeling, however, they have been decorated more with the renovations.  They now include what looks like painted-on advertisements and mural-like paintings throughout the building.  They have also been spruced up with retired jerseys and old team photos throughout the years.  The walls are still a basic cement block style with a neutral off-white color to them, but the addition of paintings and pictures really adds to the aesthetics of the building.

I do believe that the facility is meeting the needs of the community and the students now more than ever.  Before the remodeling was put into the place, it was a hassle to rent out skates at the pro-shop located within the facility.  You had to get your skates from a little window that was inefficient for the workers to work fast and the same window was used for returns as well.  This all created a lot of congestion within the facility just for a basic skate rental on busy nights.  now, the pro-shop has been completely remodeled with new skates and a new desk area that allows for easy access and a more efficient way to get the skates to the guests.  The remodeling of the locker rooms were also a huge benefit to the facility because it helps attract more community events and tournaments that will in turn generate plenty of revenue for the facility.  It seems that the remodeling has really opened up the facility a lot and these two examples only scrape the surface about what all has been done to improve the facility to benefit both the student and residential community within BG.

The newly renovated pro shop at the ice Arena features an easier ice rental process, new skates, more equipment, and a concession stand.




Perry Field House


Last week, the class took a facility tour of the Perry Field House on campus.  The field house is a relatively new building on campus, built in 1992 as an indoor track facility and multi-purpose area for the campus and surrounding community.  The building is used for various purposes, such as indoor track and field competitions, collegiate football practices, intramural athletics, and even conferences or expositions.

The layout of the facility is easy to navigate and very wide-open.  Walking through the lobby in the entrance, it is clear where you should be going because the two main rooms are visible from that point.  The information desk is located directly through the doors and one must pass by the desk in order to enter either of the two rooms.  One criticism of where the desk is located is that it is too far from the entrance and if there is a line or the attendant is busy, it is easy for someone unauthorized to sneak in the facility.  For safety concerns during large events, it would be recommended to close that gap and put tables near the entrance for check-ins.

Along with the layout, the general aesthetics of the facility are appealing.  The turf room looks very cool and still modern even though it is nearly 20 years old.  The basketball courts still look somewhat new and the colors of the facility fit with the campus.  Unlike the Rec Center on campus, the Perry Field House has aged pretty well over the years even though it is about a decade younger.

Another concern for the facility that was obvious through the tour is the lack of storage.  The builders of the facility did not take into account how much equipment would be used for the facility.  The walls in the basketball court area was lined with equipment that could be potentially dangerous to people.  There are signs posted and people know that the equipment is clearly off-limits, however the equipment is distracting to the whole building.  It looks bad and makes the facility look cluttered and unorganized.  During track and field events it could be especially dangerous because the equipment is so close to the running areas.  Also, for larger events where additional space is vital, the access equipment takes up that extra space and can lead to a crowded feel among the crowd.

Finally, I felt that building could use at least one more bathroom facility.  I did not get a chance to look into the bathrooms but as far as i could see there was only one bathroom facility.  The facility can hold a lot of people during large events  and those people have to go somewhere.  It seemed to me through my observations during the tour that in the case of a large event, the bathroom facilities are probably over-worked with too many people, long lines, and trouble staying clean.

Overall I enjoyed the facility and I loved knowing that is is nearly 20 years old but it still feels like a new building on campus.  The building has aged well and is still a staple on campus for students to use for some sort of function during their 4 years.  It may have its faults, but for a 20 year old building, those problems were probably not thought of at the time and are hard to fix at this point in time during the building’s history.

For a super awesome video of the facility, click on the following link (couldn’t get the video to embed at the moment so I’ll have to go old-school for now): Super awesome Perry Field House video


Stroh Center


A few days ago the class visited the Stroh Center, a new multi-million dollar athletic facility that houses the Men’s and Women’s basketball teams as well as the Women’s volleyball team.  The facility was impressive in its sustainable practices and general architecture.  The most obvious, striking thing to me was the reserved parking spaces for “Fuel Efficient Economy Cars” that plastered the first two rows leading into the main entrance.  I had never seen anything like that before and thought immediately how this building was going to be great in its sustainable practices.  The outside of the facility is very intriguing as well, the front of the building looks very modern and artistic, while the sides of the building look dull and have a sort of warehouse-esque to it.  The inside of the building could use some more decor and color, but time will help heal that process as more memorabilia and ideas emerge.

The functional layout for the facility seems to be pretty good.  The locker rooms were located in an area that is hard for fans to access during the game, and there is a practice court that is open 24/7 to all players.  Everything a student-athlete needs seems to be within the building.  When there is another event within the building, the athletes still have a place to practice which makes it easy to reserve court times and keep a consistent practice schedule.  There seemed to be ample storage within the facility so ease of access to the equipment seemed to be pretty good if an athlete wanted to come in during off-hours to practice on their own or with a small group.

In comparison, I think this facility matches up pretty well with any other facility.  It meets the needs of the athletes and surrounding area.  It only seats a little over 4,000 people for any athletic event which is concurrent with the population size and fan base.  The General Manager even stated that it was nice to have a smaller facility because it was easier to fill up which adds to a more exciting atmosphere.  If I could compare it to any other facility I guess I would compare it the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland.  The Quicken Loans is highly versatile; holding concerts, ice hockey, and other special events.  The seats all fold up or are stored elsewhere to make for more room and on basketball game day it provides a big atmosphere without too much seating.  While the Stroh Center does not have the versatility the Q does, it does have the proper amount of seating and the comfort of the Quicken loans Arena.  It seems that both facilities meet the needs of all the parties involved and that each is different in their own way but yet the same in other ways.

BGSU Rec Center


This past Thursday, September 8, my class went to the BGSU Rec Center for a facility tour.  The Rec Center is complete with a cardio floor, weight lifting, full-size basketball courts, two swimming pools, a rock climbing wall, and many, many racquetball courts.  The various features of the Rec Center are, for the most part, up-to-date by current standards.  It was obvious at first impression that the building has been remodeled countless times over the past 30 years but it has still remained a fully functioning Recreation Center nonetheless.

As highlighted in the tour, we visited the Rock Climbing Wall.  The Rock Climbing Wall was built in 20o2 to meet the recent demand to have rock climbing walls in various recreation centers.  Mr. Long mentioned that Ohio University has a rock climbing wall that is the focal point of the entire recreation center.  BGSU was unable to compete with this design due to the overall age and architecture of the building.  Instead they decided to remodel on of the gym rooms called the “Racquet Room” and install a 35′ rock climbing wall.  Due to financial constrictions, the Rec Center could only afford to install the wall and the ensuing safety equipment.  The rest of the room remains as it was when originally built and even doubles as 500 person bleacher stadium for swim meets.

Although, the room is not very aesthetically pleasing to the eye, it seems to have met the requirements as set forth by the textbook, Facility Planning and Design. The textbook states that the climbing walls should have color-coded handholds to properly show the routes that depict a certain difficulty level.  Judging by observation, there seemed to have been quite a few difficulty levels and routes.  It was mentioned by Mr. Long that the Outdoor Program, which is oversees the rock wall, would like another rock wall of even more difficulty that included miniature “caves” to climb through.  It seems as if the Rec Center could do all that it could given the limitations of space and money.

The other highlight of the tour was the swimming areas.  We specifically looked at Andrews Pool which is the leisure pool and spa.  Andrews Pool has been around since the opening and has had a few remodeling features since its opening.  The most notable remodeling feature was the flooring.  The floor was originally a green turf that surrounded the entire pool.  It was hard to maintain and after a few years it became out of style and not very practical.  It was replaced with a brown tile that is easier to maintain and more aesthetically pleasing.  The second renovation was the removal of the diving board.  The diving board was getting old and it was deemed unsafe by the administrators due to the lack of width in the pool.  it was also removed to add to the desired atmosphere of a leisure pool.

The pool seems to be within requirements of the textbook’s standards.  The flooring for the pool that would be ideal would be a 1″x1″ tile.  This type of tile is “the best non-slip, attractive, and long-lasting surface” according to the textbook.  Another feature of the pool is the lighting.  The pool features both natural and electric lighting sources.  The natural lighting comes from the windows along the far wall and the electric lights are normal fluorescent lights.  The natural lighting gives the feel of being outside while the electric lighting allows for the use of the pool after daylight hours and provides additional light for seeing clearer.  The natural light seems to be dimmed through the windows so as to not cause a distracting glare on the water and to not excessively heat the pool area through natural sunlight heat.

Below are the Recreation Center Industry Standards that I felt upheld the highest quality of facilities within a college recreation center.  The first is Ohio University’s Rock Climbing Wall.  The second is Texas Tech Leisure Pool.

***Click on photos for links to websites***

Clearly the focal point of the OU Recreation Center and a recreation standard that BGSU tried to emulate with the building of their rock wall

The Texas Tech Leisure Pool that cost over $8.4 million and features a swim up cafe, spray pad, a 25 person hot tub, and a lazy river.

It is pretty obvious while comparing the pictures from the ideal facilities and industry standards that the BGSU facilities do the basics in order to get the job done.  The pool is nice but it is still only a small heated pool with a hot tub.  The Rock Climbing wall is 35′ and hidden in a former multi-purpose room that doubles as a bleacher stadium on various occasions.  With time – and money – the BGSU Rec Center should be able to boast a few industry standards and ideal facilities that could compare to the two pictured above.

Skip to toolbar